???
Err...
I've used similar terms in certain suggestions I've made, but "CMD" doesn't currently exist in the Combat Maneuver system...?
But, right, Combat Maneuver Attacks (1d20+CMB, or 1d20+BAB+STR) work EXACTLY THE SAME as Melee Attack Rolls,
so "Defensive CMB" is REALLY the only distinct thing that needs to be defined, and it would better be defined as an AC equivalent target DC, similar to Touch AC (but more difficult, scaling with BAB) This benefit of tihs system is obviously it's extreme simplicity, since (clarified), it only defines a new AC, though obviously it loses a certain amount of "information" compared to 3.5's Touch Attack + STR check (opposed or not).
I'd have to say merging BAB/Attack Bonuses & Saving Throws is just too wonky, and since you still need to calculate each character's "Defensive Save Bonus" from "half BAB + relavent Attack Bonuses", are you really saving any conversion work, or just switching the actino that necesitates a conversion, from initiating a Maneuver to being the target of one? Likewise, "Fortitude" doesn't seem particularly relavent to resisting a Maneuver, which STR and DEX would logically apply to. (based on 3.5's Touch Attack and Strenth Check)
Except you have to remove the normal size modifier to attack rolls and add in the special size modifier to combat maneuver attack rolls. So you have to recalculate the entire attack bonus (for non-Medium creatures). And since normal size modifiers don't apply to these attack rolls, I'm still not clear on what other normal attack bonuses also get dropped, if any.
...Yeah, the attack bonus situation is HUGELY unclear currently.
As I see it, developing a parellel system 90 or 80% the same, isn't worth it, if the aim is "simplification",It's easier to use the same system, and explicitly define any exceptions, if they're that important.
Like you say, there's the size bonus for the attacker...
I'm not sure exactly how to handle it, but treating the Size Bonus/ Penalty more SITUATIONALLY would let you apply Bonuses/Penalties appropriately. Now that each Size Tier is only +/-1, it's easy to calculate the Size DIFFERENCE situationally, and penalize or assist the attaker depending on whether it's an Attack or Maneuver.... ???
If you aren't initiating the combat maneuver, you don't need to calculate any new numbers.
Right, it saves calculations if you are Defending, but forces a new one if you are Attacking, right? (Grapple ~ CMB, right?)
Strength is your ability to push things, pull things, and punch through things; Dexterity is your ability to move quickly; Constitution is your ability to remain steady despite outside forces acting on you.
Well, if you're in an arm wrestling competition, and you don't try to WIN, just maintain equilibrium (i.e. don't allow the other person to move YOU), that's a test of Strength, right? Per 3.5, Trip Maneuvers, etc, were Attacks opposed against Touch AC (DEX), and opposed Strength checks. CON is used to resist: Poison, "Body Shock" spells, Massive Damage, and for Running, Holding your breath, & bonus HPs... None of which represent resisting a Force directed against you or one of your limbs, but rather the overall "Health" of your body.
Correct. My proposal uses a combat maneuver DC for the attacker instead of a combat maneuver bonus. So you do need one extra number if you're attacking. But you don't need to know that number to defend against a maneuver. You just make a normal saving throw as though the combat maneuver were any other special attack.
...I guess I just don't see any net benefit from switching the roll from the Attacker to the Defender, making Maneuvers work like the Spell Save system instead of Melee Combat. CMB is aiming to simplify the Touch Attack->Strength Check sequence, not completely change anything.
(and having to divide BAB by 2 feels... wrong. BAB itself is a derivative.)That's probably muscle endurance, not muscle strength. Maintaining equilibrium while supporting weights and sustaining repetitive motion while handling light weights are both forms of endurance training, not strength training.
I'm not talking long term endurance, I'm talking for ONE ROUND, or LESS, the length of time someone is trying to TRIP you, or DISARM the Weapon from your grip, or KNOCK YOU BACK. The reason all these Maneuvers reqwuired a Strength check in 3.5...
On the other hand, a Fortitude save is used to resist being pushed back by the force of the wind created by a gust of wind spell. And a Fortitude save is also used to resist the control body psionic power, which moves your limbs by exerting direct telekinetic force on them.
Well, if you had any non-SPELL examples, that would be more interesting... Spells HAVE TO be resisted by a Save (or that's the D&D tradition), and if you have to choose a Save, it might as well be Fort ('cuz... not getting blown over is almost the same as not getting Poisoned... RIGHT).
I guess I just don't see much compelling reasons to go the way you did, as it just moves the 'conversion' requirement from Offense to Defense, and also requires funky math by dividing BAB by 2, which I have NEVER seen in any other mechanic.
(not that it's HARD, but NOTHING ELSE does that. using the same conventions as everything else helps achieve SIMPLICITY)
If you CAN build on what is already there, WHY NOT? Like I mentioned, if Maneuver Attacks are treated like normal Attacks, YOU DON'T NEED TO WRITE A NEW SYSTEM, you just need to add a column to the Size Table: 1 Tier Larger Size = +1 for Maneuvers and -1 for Melee... And define Maneuver AC to = Touch AC +5(?)+BAB. All that works with values (BAB,Touch AC) and systems that are already used and that aren't changing.
And one more minor thing: Things like the Shield Master Feat, which lets you do a "free" Bull Rush when you Shield Bash, or Monsters' Improved Grab or Trip Abilities, all work by using THE SAME ATTACK ROLL for the Masneuver as the normal attack. I actually hope we see MORE of these type of Feats, so Charger types can get Bullrushes, or Power Attackers could get Sunders in more often. Separating Maneuvers from the attack roll mechanism goes against how these type of effects work, and if simplicity is the aim, INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF DICE ROLLS in Combat, since now the DEFENDER has to roll against the DC of the attacker, which was precisely what CMB was aiming to simplify.
...But interestingly, even when you changed from Fort to Reflex, your big list of examples (I don't count Bo9S as 3.5) were almost all pseudo-magical powers of monsters - the only exceptions I could see were Awesome Blow & Crush. (and the fact that Monster designers happened to choose a certain mechanism to resist a monster ability doesn't particularly reflect any truth about the combat system in general)
On this point, though, I would say that I SUPPORT bringing DEX/Dodge Bonuses back into Defensive CMB (search the boards for "Maneuver AC"), since this is consistent with Combat Maneuvers in 3.5, where high Touch AC (& Fighting Defensively) helped you avoid the Maneuvers in the first place... Adding an extra bonus for the defender makes me think the based DC (15) should be lowered, but that's just a detail.
From your response to my problem with deriving a seconday (tertiary!) stat from BAB (which is itself derivative), I can assume that there is indeed NO example of such usage (thanks for checking for me :-) ...Likewise we never see any stat/formula based off of Halving a character's Saving Throw Modifiers. I won't go into this any further.
Like Ruemere points out, if you're using un-converted 3.5 Stat-blocks, just use the Grapple number. (You can account for the reduced Size Modifiers in Pathfinder if you want, but you'd do that anyways for normal Melee, not to mention your Saving Throw system, presumably) Although you have definitely taken the "Stat Block Compatible" point of view, your "system" doesn't seem to remotely reference how Maneuvers worked in 3.5. Thus, from your stated design-perspective, Monsters or Characters that were supposed to be HARD to achieve a maneuver against, are not particularly so in your system (low Dex, high STR, large creatures). You can add more complications to your system to try and achieve that... but why?
Even if you think your individual new "system" is "simple", that doesn't matter: Players shouldn't have to memorize 20 or 30 different, but "simple" systems. Please read what I wrote about Maneuver AC. That "system" isn't even a distinct "system" at all. Anyone who can resolve Melee Combat can resolve Maneuver Combat. Is there anything INHERENTLY superior to Maneuvers as (Defender's Saving Throw vs. Attacker's DC), compared to such a system? I don't really see it. And simplicity is a quality all to it's own.
|
I like your thought process of trying to simplify the mechanic, but it just doesn't make any sense in my mind for any of the manuevers other than Bull Rush/Overrun (and maybe Trip).
Why would a Fortitude save help a character to keep from getting Disarmed or from being caught in a dragon's maw (a Grapple check)? It just doesn't make any sense having it work on one of the current saving throws.
Maybe what could be done is to implement a new "Combat Manuever Saving Throw" with a DC = 10 + 1/2 Base Attack Bonus + Size mod + Relevant Ability Modifer...
...with the ability modifier being either Strength or Dexterity, whichever is higher. This doesn't penalize characters who are quick but not strong and vice versa, while still taking into account that fighter-types should be pros at this sort of thing.
Also I would still recommend a Touch Attack with the DC. The attacker should have to do more than just say, "I disarm you unless you beat my DC of 16."
|
I like your thought process of trying to simplify the mechanic, but it just doesn't make any sense in my mind for any of the manuevers other than Bull Rush/Overrun (and maybe Trip).
Why would a Fortitude save help a character to keep from getting Disarmed or from being caught in a dragon's maw (a Grapple check)? It just doesn't make any sense having it work on one of the current saving throws.
Maybe what could be done is to implement a new "Combat Manuever Saving Throw" with a DC = 10 + 1/2 Base Attack Bonus + Size mod + Relevant Ability Modifer...
...with the ability modifier being either Strength or Dexterity, whichever is higher. This doesn't penalize characters who are quick but not strong and vice versa, while still taking into account that fighter-types should be pros at this sort of thing.
Also I would still recommend a Touch Attack with the DC. The attacker should have to do more than just say, "I disarm you unless you beat my DC of 16."
Not sure I'd chuck in the touch attack as well, its kind of making the guy trying the CMB have two chances to fail. Not too many spells with ranged touch attack have a save as well (that I remember, no books in front of me atm), so why do it to a CMB maneuver?
|
|
You still want the touch attack because the two things affect you differently. If a ray of intense heat (ala Scorching Ray) touches you, it's going to hurt a lot. It's a simple action.
On the other hand, a combat manuever is a more complicated action. The attacker needs to be able to contact his opponent (touch attack) and have enough skill to accomplish the maneuver (CMB roll/save).
If you only have the save, then you are effectively penalizing melee classes like the Fighter because their superior combat skill--which should translate to an ease of accomplishing combat manuevers--isn't reflected in a save mechanic alone. With a save as the only mechanic, a Fighter and a Wizard of equal level are almost equally as likely to accomplish a combat manuever against the same foe.
Requiring the touch attack balances this out a little bit. Now the wizard will not be as likely to make that touch attack as his fighter counterpart at lower levels, and at higher levels his lower BAB continues to make the Wizard's disarm attempt easier to resist than the Fighter's.
I like the idea. I know it may seem like a stretch at first but why not make CBM's have a DC and cause a saving through resist them. Would it be so out of the question to the make the special attack actions that everyone has access to similar in structure as a spell or the Ex. attacks of certain monsters?
It would need a touch attack to initiate the special attack and if successful a saving through would have to be made to rest the affect. The DC would take into consideration the attackers pri ability and the generic +10 like a spell. It would need more to make it competive with the base save bonus that the spell level or the ½ creatures HD it the case of ex abilities, half your BAB isn’t that far of a stretch. The size mod could even be added directly into the DC but the defenders size mod would need to be added to the save (or just be a special neg to the DC).
The touch attack would take into count any defensive actions the opponent would have already taken. So things like expertise, full def action and cover would still count for something.
I do see the point about str and not con helping w bulrush or str helping you hold on to your weapon, est. but this is just an abstraction. I could see con helping you hold your ground against bulrush and having a strong grip doesn’t mean you don’t have butterfingers. If making a con based fort save to rest a bull rush tidies up game play for the other attacks *cough cough grapple* then so be it. It moves the calculating to the attackers so as a defender just needs to know is what save to make. Witch in my opinion is much more in line with the d20 system and backwards compatibly.
Then the special feats will increase the attacker’s effectiveness beyond the norm. and I would like to see a feet line that will make you better and different attacks. Maybe like greater bull rush which makes it easier to move to attacker more spaces or take an melee attack against them also or greater disarm that allows you to catch the weapon or throw it were you want.
This would also help with the scaling issue as long as saving thoughts are scaled properly.
|
No offense, but the suggestions you present are either already covered by the new feats proposed by Paizo in this thread, or non-viable as they would re-complicate things back the way they were or worse.
Also note that a CMB manoeuver is now a standard action, and that it's always a fail on a 1, and always a success on a 20. There are many feats that allow a character to escape these moves, and Escape Artist is now a very effective way to escape big bad Improved Grab monsters with an big CMB bonus.
Yes I do like those extra feats. They are heading in the right direction of making the abilities more affective.
But I disagree that this suggestion would “re-complicate” things. Really the only thing that CBMs do now that 3.5 didn’t do is to give the defender an “ac” opposed to making a die roll and making all CBM standard actions. NMO both of these “improvements” are just mint to speed up game play. I don’t think changing the mechanic to have someone roll a touch attach and then having the opponent roll a save would slow anything down more than casting a spell does.
|
|
The PRPG system now gives tons of feats to players. Dex fighters should just take Agile Maneuvers. Simple.
That save method suggestion of yours is wonky. Why would a damn cloak of resistance do anything against a big ass monk trying to trip you on your ass? I hate that 4E mentality that tries to insidiously transform a sword hit or a combat move into some kind of crappy wizard-like spell that require a damn DC. BAB and strength is what will protect you against fighters trying to make you do things you don't like! If you're meek and lame, stay in the back and cast spells!
The current method is simple: defenders like wizards or clerics who don't intend to ever initiate any of these moves only need to know one number: 15 + BAB + STR + size. Add +4 if you take the defensive feat. Swap STR for DEX if you take Agile Man.
Bam! Next! Combat done quicker so you can actually game more on a given night.
Why does BAB prevent me from being tripped? Prevent be me from being pushed back? Make me hold on o my weapon better? What does being able to hit someone in combat have to do with any of those things.
Why would you use BAB to prevent an effect and not a saving through when saves are designed to “save” you from negative affects already?
Why does a cloak of rest help when you have been poisoned? When you have been engulfed in a ball of fire? A trap dropping a very large block of stone on your head? …. Because it’s magic.
These examples were already listed in the post and they do not seem to out of wack.
* Adhesive (Ex), a special defense of the kuo-toa and mimic, which requires a save to avoid being disarmed.
* Awesome Blow, a feat from the Monster Manual, which requires a save to avoid being knocked back and knocked prone.
* Crush (Ex), a special attack of many true dragons, which requires a save to avoid being pinned.
* Engulf (Ex), a special attack of many oozes, which requires a save to avoid being grappled.
* Rust (Ex), a rust monster special defense, which requires a save to avoid having your weapon sundered.
* Whirlwind (Su), an air elemental and djinni special attack, which requires a save to avoid being grabbed and held.
* Vortex (Su), a water elemental special attack, which requires a save to avoid being grabbed and held.
The whole point of the post is to discuss how to make the already “wonky” rules better. Like I said in my earlier post the only this that is fundamental difference about the CBM is the opponent doesn’t roll a die, it’s like they are just taking 15 on the role. Most other people that have been play testing these rules don’t seem too happy with the CBM rules. No one seemed to happy with the old 3x rules either so why not try something completely different that is bases off something that is already in use and accepted as balanced.
All these rules are experimental and this post is just talking about what if it were different. The feats don’t matter because if system were to be changed to use saving troughs then they could just as easily tweak any feats if needed.
|
|
Why does BAB prevent me from being tripped? Prevent be me from being pushed back? Make me hold on o my weapon better? What does being able to hit someone in combat have to do with any of those things.
Because being able to hit someone in combat has to do with EXACTLY all of these things, among others!
These examples were already listed in the post and they do not seem to out of wack.
* Adhesive (Ex), a special defense of the kuo-toa and mimic, which requires a save to avoid being disarmed.
* Awesome Blow, a feat from the Monster Manual, which requires a save to avoid being knocked back and knocked prone.
* Crush (Ex), a special attack of many true dragons, which requires a save to avoid being pinned.
* Engulf (Ex), a special attack of many oozes, which requires a save to avoid being grappled.
* Rust (Ex), a rust monster special defense, which requires a save to avoid having your weapon sundered.
* Whirlwind (Su), an air elemental and djinni special attack, which requires a save to avoid being grabbed and held.
* Vortex (Su), a water elemental special attack, which requires a save to avoid being grabbed and held.
The Bestiary isn't out yet, so it remains to be seen how these abilities will now be handled. Until then, you must keep comparing apples to apples, i.e. old grapple/disarm/bull rush rules vs. new CMB rules.
And as far as I'm concerned the abilities you listed above were INCREDIBLY out of whack exactly because they did not use BAB. I'm sorry, but Awesome Blow requiring a Reflex Save DC = to damage dealt? with prereq Improved Bull Rush? why the heck shouldn't it use the Bull Rush rules?!? Ref save?!? wtf? LOL! So big fighter guy wearing a 3 ton armor gets clipped, has low Ref saves, and flies, far, far away!!! Then, small fry halfling GETS CLIPPED as well, but does not obey laws of physics and instead of flying even a longer distance, STAYS ROOTED IN HIS SPOT and goes nowhere!??! why? oh, of course! HIGH REF SAVE!!! YAY! O_o
I won't even go into Crush...
I’m not saying make bull rush a ref save. I think a fort save would be more appropriate. This would change the example you used regarding huge fighter type and the small Halfling to be interpreted exactly the way you did. The burly tank type would not be push over and the small rouge would be pushed around easer. Not because of their ability to hit someone else, but because of the fighters better resilience represented but higher con and higher base fort save. Whereas Halfling rouge would have a lower base save and lower con and a neg for being small. Now it wouldn’t be a stretch to allow players to pick between fort and ref to negate and bull rush or interchange fort and ref for grapple. I could see the big bear of a man with a large fort not budging when the pesky monk only hugs him in vain with a negated grapple or the Halfling rouge dodging out of the way of bull rush.
If all attacks, either magical of physical, were made using the same format how would it be unbalanced. You could even go to the extreme of not having and armor class. You would need and new 4th save to replace AC to oppose melee attacks and your ref save would negate ranged attacks. Armor would be used as damaged reduction. I know some could think it’s different than what’s been out for d&d in the past, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work better and have a better flow on the table.
You finally got my point, this is where I wanted to go with the post to begin with, but you only seemed interested in commenting on what I had been saying doesn’t make since to you. The system I just suggested without any AC and all saving throws is exactly like 4x just with opposed attack rolls and saving throws instead of defenses that have to be hit like an AC. I think that this new CBM is going the same direction that 4x had used to get their system but pathfinder just didn’t go to the extreme that 4x had and make everything an AC. The point I planned to make is that I want something different than 4x and I don’t like the CBM system either. I think that the 3x system of opposed roles made since, it just slowed down to game play so match it made it no fun for everyone else. I would like to hear other options that could replace both systems to see if anyone else has a better idea.